Carter v. Barrington

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carter v. Barrington

319 S.E.2d 894, 171 Ga. App. 414, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2220

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 28, 1984

Docket68569

StatusPublished

This text of 319 S.E.2d 894 (Carter v. Barrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Barrington, 319 S.E.2d 894, 171 Ga. App. 414, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2220 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment for the defendant in a malicious prosecution action. The defendant swore out a criminal arrest warrant against John Alan Carter on October 4, 1982, charging him with reckless driving. Later that day, he swore out a second warrant against John Alan Carter’s father, Anthony John Carter, charging him with use of abusive and obscene language. On March 7, 1983, grand jury indictments were returned on both charges. However, a nolle prosequi was subsequently entered on each indictment, with the plaintiffs paying all court costs. The Carters subsequently filed this suit.

The assistant district attorney who handled the two criminal cases testified by affidavit that the nolle prosequis were entered pursuant to a settlement agreement negotiated by the attorney representing the plaintiffs, whereby, in addition to paying the court costs, the plaintiffs agreed to refrain from filing any civil action against the defendant for malicious arrest, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or abuse of process based on the defendant’s conduct in swearing out the warrants and prosecuting the charges. The plaintiffs do not deny that their defense attorney entered into such an agreement with the assistant district attorney on their behalf, but they assert that their attorney was without authority to settle on these terms. Held:'

“[W]here the dispute as to an agreement is not between opposing parties but is, rather, between the attorney and client over the attorney’s authority, and where the opposite party is ignorant of any limitation upon the attorney’s authority, the client will be bound by his attorney’s actions.” Brumbelow v. Northern Propane Gas Co., 251 Ga. 674, 676 (308 SE2d 544) (1983). It follows that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant. Accord Smith v. Otwell, 51 Ga. App. 741 (1) (181 SE 493) (1935); Coggins v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 47 Ga. App. 314 (170 SE 308) (1933).

Judgment affirmed.

Pope and Benham, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Banke, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment for the defendant in a malicious prosecution action. The defendant swore out a criminal arrest warrant against John Alan Carter on October 4, 1982, charging him with reckless driving. Later that day, he swore out a second warrant against John Alan Carter’s father, Anthony John Carter, charging him with use of abusive and obscene language. On March 7, 1983, grand jury indictments were returned on both charges. However, a nolle prosequi was subsequently entered on each indictment, with the plaintiffs paying all court costs. The Carters subsequently filed this suit.

The assistant district attorney who handled the two criminal cases testified by affidavit that the nolle prosequis were entered pursuant to a settlement agreement negotiated by the attorney representing the plaintiffs, whereby, in addition to paying the court costs, the plaintiffs agreed to refrain from filing any civil action against the defendant for malicious arrest, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or abuse of process based on the defendant’s conduct in swearing out the warrants and prosecuting the charges. The plaintiffs do not deny that their defense attorney entered into such an agreement with the assistant district attorney on their behalf, but they assert that their attorney was without authority to settle on these terms. Held:'

“[W]here the dispute as to an agreement is not between opposing parties but is, rather, between the attorney and client over the attorney’s authority, and where the opposite party is ignorant of any limitation upon the attorney’s authority, the client will be bound by his attorney’s actions.” Brumbelow v. Northern Propane Gas Co., 251 Ga. 674, 676 (308 SE2d 544) (1983). It follows that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant. Accord Smith v. Otwell, 51 Ga. App. 741 (1) (181 SE 493) (1935); Coggins v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 47 Ga. App. 314 (170 SE 308) (1933).

Judgment affirmed.

Pope and Benham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 S.E.2d 894, 171 Ga. App. 414, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-barrington-gactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack